. /.  RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG170/M/2 
15 May 2006 
 (06-2347) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Forty-Second Session  
 
 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE ENLARGEM ENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
 
Note on the Meeting of 3 April 2006  
 
Chairman:  Mr. O. Camara (Senegal) 
  
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2786/Rev.1. 
2. Under Agenda Item C.VIII of its 42
nd Session, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
(hereinafter CRTA or the Committee) took up the sec ond round of examination of the Enlargement of 
the European Union (EU). 
3. The Chairman  noted that the proceedings of the firs t round of examinati on, which had taken 
place in July 2005, had been distributed in document WT/REG170/M/1 and Corr.1.  Since then, the Parties had provided replies to questions put by de legations, which had been circulated in document 
WT/REG170/3.  Given that the Committee had alr eady had a round of discussion under each of the 
headings of the Standard Format, document WT /REG170/2, he proposed to open the floor for 
comments and questions by broad Section. 
4. The representative of Hong Kong, China
, under Section II.6, Trade Provisions, Anti-dumping 
and Countervailing Measures, asked under what pr ovisions of the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and GATT Article XXIV the Parties justified the automatic extension of 
anti-dumping measures to the ten new member states.  The Parties' answer to question 10 of document 
WT/REG170/3 stated that "enlargement does not n ecessarily change the basic economic parameters 
of the existing measures" and that "a review [of existing measures] would legally only be necessary if 
the changed circumstance affects the level of the m easures in force or puts into question the existence 
of those measures".  She sought clarification on  what would constitute changes of the "basic 
economic parameters" of existing measures and why th e extension of an anti-dumping measure to the 
ten new member states did not affect the level of the measure in force or put the existence of a 
measure in question.  Secondly, given that du mping was an export-specific concept and that 
anti-dumping measures were export-specific, she asked whether it was the intention of the European 
Communities (EC) to review an existing measure ba sed on an export-specific assessment and, if not, 
why not.  The representative of the European Communities  agreed to provide a reply in writing, upon 
submission of questions.  In reference to the econo mic background, he stressed that his delegation had 
been extremely transparent on the non-automatic  extension of Trade Defence Instruments (TDI) 
measures because it had entered into dialogue with all partners concerned with a view to establish 
whether a review should be undertak en to ensure that the extensi on would not be done on an wrongful 
basis.  Also, he considered that it would have been appropriate to  receive some appreciation for the 
anti-dumping and safeguard measures which had been  removed from the ten new member states.   
5. The representative of the United States , referring to the answer to question 17 of document 
WT/REG170/3 on the schedules of export subsidies reduction commitments for agricultural products, 
said that the response suggested that the EU 15 sc hedule would apply until th e negotiations led to a WT/REG170/M/2 
Page 2  
 
  revised EU 25 schedule.  Her de legation had concluded Art XXIV:6 ne gotiations with the EU and had 
not come to any agreement on the consolidation on export subsidies.  She therefore asked the 
EC representative to confirm the budgetary outlay a nd quantity commitments in respect of the export 
subsidy reduction commitments for the EU 25.  If the levels were still undetermined what was the 
EU's schedule for negotiating those commitments?  The representative of th e European Communities
 
agreed to provide a response in writing.  His delega tion would notify the schedule that was applicable 
under the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreements.   
6. The Chairman  said that the second round of examination of the goods aspects of the 
Enlargement of the European Union had allowe d the Committee to clarify certain points though 
others remained.  He requested delegations wishing to  ask questions to forward them to the Secretariat 
by 28 April, and the Parties to submit replies in  writing by not later than 19 May.  The Committee 
could consider the factual examination as complete .  Once the replies had been circulated to 
Members, any request for additiona l information could be dealt with  without holding another round of 
formal examination and the Secretariat could begin drafting the examination report for this 
Agreement.  It was so agreed . 
7. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________